>>718651568
>sit out side, trial and error wait for him to not be looking at the door as you walk through it
bad programming. sorry. when the option is "sit for 20 minutes to try and sneak through the level" or "blast your way through in 5", only a moron picks the former. This is a common thread in bad stealth games, where it's quicker to ignore the stealth and just go guns-blazing. In good stealth games like Thief, the games are balanced around NOT being detected and as a result it will take you longer to complete levels if you are (and often you end up getting yourself killed anyway). If players can easily beat levels whilst ignoring core gameplay mechanics, your programming and scenario design is bad. simple as. I don't give a shit about how many contextual animations are in the game, that's not GAMEPLAY. That was the core of my complaint. And as you highlighted, a component of it is RNG as well (the guard spawning in a part of his route, and where he is in relation to his route by the time you choose to enter the room you cannot see into beforehand).
Now observe as your midwit brain misreads the previous sentence as "I cannot predict where the guard will go because hurr durr too dumb to follow patrol pattern".
>>718651673
"you are too scared to kill me"
don't put that line in if you don't want me to blast her. simple as. don't insult me and expect me to take it. this ain't Spec Ops The Line